Is the die cast for DEI?
A growing number of corporations — From A(mazon) to W(almart) — are quietly stepping away from it, and some are facing the backlash of consumer boycotts, most recently Target. One example is this column by my friend, Jenice Armstrong of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
She was not alone. And I can understand the feeling of, well, betrayal. But, like most things, it’s complicated.
Armstrong’s implicit call for a boycott of Target was matched by a plea to not boycott by Black manufacturers whose financial stability is tied to the giant merchandiser.
So what do you do?
I consistently read that white women are the greatest beneficiaries of DEI, which is often defined as “programs to hire more employees from groups that are underrepresented in their workforce, such as racial and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities and to promote equity in the workplace.”
If white women are the primary beneficiaries, you have to ask yourself if DEI is succeeding. (I have found no reliable stats on how each demographic — Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, handicapped — fares under DEI.)
While DEI had its embryonic roots in the mid-60s, it exploded after the George Floyd riots protests, and the Black Lives Matter movement. (I know many people consider women to be minorities. I do not, because I can count. They are considered a “protected class” by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.)
Wait!
We have an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission? So why do we need DEI?
Maybe because EEOC is not effective enough?
In the wake of George Floyd, white guilt (some of it deserved) went through the roof.
The Fortune 500 crowd lined up, got into their swimsuits, and dived into the DEI pools, spending billions.
Here’s the funny thing: According to polling from Pew, DEI is actually popular among a majority of white Americans.
But a majority also say they don’t need more diversity in their own workplace.
How to explain that?
I think, generally speaking, Americans are fair-minded people, who recognize there are racial inequities in American life. But specifically, they don’t see any around them.
Are they right? Debate among yourselves.
If DEI is generally popular, why are companies abandoning it?
Because conservatives have been successful in demonizing it as reverse racism, and a Washington Post poll found that most Americans feel it benefits minorities most.
Which is what it was intended to do, even if it did not do that. White women benefited most, remember?
When DEI policies are explained, their popularity rises, the Washington Post poll found.
But I think it’s too late.
When it comes to Target, Amazon, Walmart, and all the rest, I want to know if they remain equal opportunity employers.
I checked those three. They all have equal opportunity policies. Equal opportunity is defined as treating everyone the same, equally.
Has it been 100% successful?
No. Nothing is perfect.
But equal opportunity is like DEI Lite. It doesn’t have a negative downside.
That’s where we should focus our efforts.
If DEI worked out for the big companies they wouldn’t walk away from it. All companies should have the choice to hire, promote the person that would be the best fit for the job.
If the EEOC isn’t effective enough…
When filling out a application it should be against the law to ask what race you are. Every job should be awarded by merit.
While not explicitly illegal in most cases, asking for an applicant’s race on a job application is generally considered a bad practice and can be used as evidence of discriminatory intent by an employer, as it is not necessary to determine someone’s ability to perform a job, and could be seen as a way to discriminate against certain racial groups; therefore, most legal experts advise against it.
Interesting point. When I was in college in the ‘60s, I had a soc course taught by an officer of the city human relations commission.
With good intent, someone wrote a rule prohibiting employers from taking racial information.
The idea was to curtail discrimination.
The city soon discovered, to its chagrin, without that info it had no way of tracking whether progress had been made in the hiring of minorities.
Things often are more complicated than they seem.
There should be no tracking of races. You hire who you think is the most qualified for the job. No employer is going to hire someone who is not qualified. You pick the person who fits your needs.
Ah! Target: damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Such delicious irony, as mankind struggles to end discrimination by discriminating.
Well put, Vince!
I think there is certainly a benefit to meritocracy in hiring. Having stated this belief, there is also a great benefit to corporations in hiring folks from different social and economic backgrounds to get differing views on whatever it is they do. Costco, JP Morgan Chase and Apple are three large corporations that are continuing their DEI programs. We need diversity of thought, people with different backgrounds and experiences to keep us on course.
With diversity initiatives, my fundamental question is always – are we 1) celebrating our already existing diversity in the organization? OR 2) trying to socially engineer a desired proportionate makeup of diversity in the organization?
If it is #1, I am fully on board. I thoroughly enjoy celebrations and proclamations of Black History month, Hispanic Heritage, Asian & Pacific Islanders, Jewish heritage, Irish, German, you name it. Like learn in about the history and contributions of then various communities and appreciating their presence in our organization.
But if #2, the moment the discussion turns to “we need to increase the % of Hispanics in our org. from 20 to 27, reduce Caucasian from 55 to 47, keep Asian steady at 32, etc, that is where I have a problem on principle.
In my org, #1 was my experience and I enjoyed it but some believe it was a guide for people at much higher levels to implement #2. I don’t know.
The only type of engineered diversity I support in my work is professional diversity – meaning for certain projects if we have project managers and finance people, maybe getting at least 1 attorney could help too. If I am in a room where 3 of us are accountants and 1 is a HR person, the HR person is the minority & I need to be sensitive that they may not understand all of our accounting jargon. I have felt like the minority at times b/c I may be the only non-attorney or just less experienced at something than others on the team. These are areas where I see value in diversifying “professionally,” not based on what you look like.